Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

Cain Marko wrote:↑ Saar, I humbly submit to you that when it comes to any acquisitions in India it always takes decades of planning Strangely, the Navy tends to be fastest in this process despite having to work with assets that would normally take longer.....

As I explained to Manish earlier, you have to lock in decisions and commit well in advance for an aircraft carrier program. The MMRCA may have taken a long time to go through the slow acquisition cycle but the point of no return was towards the end. Strategically and financially, you have to commit to a new large carrier progam well in advance. Its a 15 year period and the IN is probably still in year 2 or 3 i.e the concept development phase and early design phase where they are locking in technologies before they pursue more detailed design and design freeze.

And do you think the IN hasn't analyzed different fleet growth strategies? Again the process they would have followed would have been internal analysis of various competing strategies followed by moving it to the MOD that would then require the RM to sign off, allowing them to follow a particular track through completion. It is unfair to suggest that they have only considered 1 vishaal for the 2030+ environment and not through what else they would need to grow (capability) to support one, two or three such carriers in the 2030-2060 time-frame.

And do you think the IN hasn't analyzed different fleet growth strategies? Again the process they would have followed would have been internal analysis of various competing strategies followed by moving it to the MOD that would then require the RM to sign off, allowing them to follow a particular track through completion. It is unfair to suggest that they have only considered 1 vishaal for the 2030+ environment and not through what else they would need to grow (capability) to support one, two or three such carriers in the 2030-2060 time-frame.

Like we said earlier Perhaps. again, nowhere does Indian naval vision for the future plan for more than 3 carriers. But post 2050 this may happen.

Say vishal 1 comes in around 2040, V2 in 2055, and V3 in 2070. Of course they will have to manage with two for the next 2 decades.

For carrier buffs.IN Carrier self-protection needs to be augmented using multi-layered anti-missile systems.Even salvoes of subsonic legacy missiles like Harpoon,Exocet,Uran,Silkworm,etc, will be difficult to defeat unless carriers and their escorts are capable of also launching salvoes of anti-missile missiles at med and short ranges,with gatlings and decoys as last ditch measures.Apart from a main anti-air missile system such as B-8 or equiv,a secondary gun/missile combo like Pantsir ,or separate gun and BPDMS should also be fitted. The proliferation of supersonic anti-ship missiles is going to increase ,as some navies such as China already have Moskit and Klub Sov. era SSMs and a few other nations have developed/are developing their own types (not to mention our very own JV BMos. planned to go hyper post 2020).The threat from ballistic missiles appeared after the Chinese boasted of their BM system meant to kill USN carriers,but how sophisticated the detection,targeting and data links the PLAN and navies in general possess remain an unanswered Q. LR/endurance UAVs,LRMP/AEW aircraft and subs are more likely to spot an enemy CBG and relay the info to other naval/air assets for offensive strikes to be launched.

This is just one factor why subs and in the future,semi-submersible surface warships will proliferate,as by remaining UW and very difficult to detect,subs will in general have the advantage of the first strike.

Multibillion-pound defence projects are at risk from technological advances by potential enemies of the UK, the think-tank study found. Missiles costing less than £500,000 each could ‘at least disable’ Britain’s new £3.1billion HMS Queen Elizabeth, it claimed.

The report noted: ‘Key Western military assets had become vulnerable to targeting and disruption and destruction by long-range precision missiles to a degree that had hitherto been unthinkable.’

It warns the Government has focused more on offensive systems over protective capabilities.

‘There has been a growing imbalance within the attack-defence military equation, driven by the spread and speed of applicable technologies,’ it adds.

The £3.1billion HMS Queen Elizabeth could be disabled by low-cost, technology-rich weapons, the study found

The report by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) lists Iran as an example, saying the country has long held anti-ship missiles from Russia.

It has also claimed to have developed its own Hormuz-2 supersonic, ballistic anti-ship missile, weapons which ‘must be seen as a key contextual element of British naval deployments’.

The Royal United Services Institute report names the most notable vulnerability as ‘increased peer and near-peer threat from Chinese and Russian long-range precision missiles’.

It adds: ‘China and Russia appear to have focused many of their efforts on being able to put at risk the key Western assets that are large, few in number and expensive … The advancing capabilities of potential adversaries of the UK should be a genuine concern.’RELATED ARTICLESHitler came within a whisker of making a nuke before the US... *(read,enthralling new book)

For the adversary ‘it has become much cheaper to destroy major systems and platforms than to develop and build them, making large-scale attacks on a single target more likely’.

Another area of concern is defences in space, where the UK has a significant satellite-building capability and makes extensive military use of space for spying and communications.

The authors add: ‘The advancing capabilities of potential adversaries of the UK should be a genuine concern.’

Co-author Professor Trevor Taylor, a professorial fellow at RUSI, said: ‘UK defence policy prioritises the capability to project force to areas of concern and to deter attacks on British assets and allies.'It has become much cheaper to destroy major systems and platforms than to develop and build them, making large-scale attacks on a single target more likely¿, the report said.

‘The advancing capabilities of potential adversaries in Northern Europe, the Middle East and even East Asia need to be taken into account in reviews of UK defence policy and military tasks, British and Nato approaches to deterrence strategy, and the priorities for UK capability development.’

The sheer Chutzpah is amazing. Have no clue about what tonnage is and then give sanctimonious "advice" to grizzled weatherbeaten sea dogs on what to do. More on the lines of generating "sonic booms" in a body that is traveling at less than the speed of sound. Oh well, par for the course I suppose. The entire forum has become "Nukkadized" by incessant trolling . Has no clue whether measuring weight or volume or whatever tonnage refers to , but no, all ready to shoot some random mouth off in all directions .

The sheer Chutzpah is amazing. Have no clue about what tonnage is and then give sanctimonious "advice" to grizzled weatherbeaten sea dogs on what to do. More on the lines of generating "sonic booms" in a body that is traveling at less than the speed of sound. Oh well, par for the course I suppose. The entire forum has become "Nukkadized" by incessant trolling . Has no clue whether measuring weight or value or whatever tonnage refers to , but no, all ready to shoot some random mouth off in all directions.

Who are me or you to give "advice".. that too to the navy ?Certain efforts are in play wrt Aircraft carrier acquisition.

I have noted my understanding of the same and possible future growth as per my understanding.

Rather than point out discrepancies in my post or my understanding, you choose to troll me instead.

The navy is going in for 65,000 T carrier.You can all you want or bah pah the move.

Who had thought in 2004,when work on Vikrant started that navy would be going in for a 65,000 T emals equipped carrier ? The person arguing such then would have been laughed at by know it alls like what is happening right now.

Nirav, while tbe above reaction to your post is excessive and personal, with respect standarding on any tonnage makes no sense in our context. At most we will have 3/4 carriers which are highly bespoke and complex systems which will be made in serial production not a factory line. We are not going to churn them out like rifles or tanks or even aircatft so where does standardisation on a tonnage of 100k make sense ?

In fact I am still not convinced that we either need this 65 k tonne carrier or even if we will get it. A carrier is meaningless by itself. It needs an air wing and a support screen of destroyers and corvettes and frigates. I am with Philip sir on this. We need subs, aircraft and then lastly carriers.

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Nirav, while tbe above reaction to your post is excessive and personal, with respect standarding on any tonnage makes no sense in our context. At most we will have 3/4 carriers which are highly bespoke and complex systems which will be made in serial production not a factory line. We are not going to churn them out like rifles or tanks or even aircatft so where does standardisation on a tonnage of 100k make sense ?

In fact I am still not convinced that we either need this 65 k tonne carrier or even if we will get it. A carrier is meaningless by itself. It needs an air wing and a support screen of destroyers and corvettes and frigates. I am with Philip sir on this. We need subs, aircraft and then lastly carriers.

Kapoor Saab,I understand and agree with a large part of your post.

@tonnage, irrespective of the gent making fun of the use of the word, I'll choose to still use it considering AK sir too chose to use it !

Here is my take on it.When vichar vimarsh on Vikrants replacement was carried out, ADS @28,000 T was intended.Owing to perilous economic situation the project was placed in indefinite hold and when conditions were right the project was revived and the specs were changed to 32,000 T.Then it was re revised to 37,500 T when the project was about to be launched and finally settled at 40,000 T.All STOBAR.

The navy has decided to not follow STOBAR in its future carriers and opt for CATOBAR knowing fully well the limitations of the former.

Now,if the EMALs were unavailable, natural course of action would entail CSL to build a follow on IAC @ 40,000T.But with the EMALs available, we have the opportunity to skip STOBAR and go straight to EMALs, which is one generation ahead of steam catapults.

@money with a STOBAR INS Vikrant costing us close to 4 billion dollars, the only difference between a repeat order of the same class vs the 65,000T EMALs would be the extra monies needed for the technology+ larger ship. The "tonnage".

@Induction - if we go by the standard timelines, it won't be until 2030 that the Vishal would be ready.Same for a possible repeat follow on of the 40,000 The ship.

Looking at these factors, the capability accorded for the extra(somewhat marginal) expense on the 65,000 T ship is disproportionately higher by the CATOBAR.

Hence I believe that the decision to go in for the bigger carrier is correct.

Reason I speculated about 100k T as standardisation benchmark rather than 65,000 T is mainly due to the task given to the navy. The carrier growth plan is aimed at sea dominance and control rather than denial. It may or may not happen. We might standardise on the 65,000 T too.But the thought isn't really THAT outlandish considering the timeframes of 2030-2040.

Who in their right minds,30 years back,in 1987 had thought that the Indian Navy in 2017, would be inducting indegenous destroyers costing a Billion dollars each or a French 'conventional' sub costing almost a billion dollars ?

The Chinese intend to standardise around the Varyag sized ships,60,000+ T ,and if we go by recent noises, they are looking to convert their future carriers to CATOBAR using EMALs rather than go STOBAR.

We've historically had an edge over them in carrier aviation, we simply cannot let it go away.

Unless we are being expeditious in our military ambitions why should the INS Vikrant being built not be a template for future carriers? 65K Ton with emals and nuclear powered is how to put more money on one asset and deny money for other weapons.

Unless we are being expeditious in our military ambitions why should the INS Vikrant being built not be a template for future carriers? 65K Ton with emals and nuclear powered is how to put more money on one asset and deny money for other weapons.

Because there is an underlying reason Sir...with EMALS comes F-18. The carrier is not the issue. The platform being used aboard the carrier is the issue. Philip, Akshayji and You are all correct.

Unless we are being expeditious in our military ambitions why should the INS Vikrant being built not be a template for future carriers? 65K Ton with emals and nuclear powered is how to put more money on one asset and deny money for other weapons.

could the choices in airwing determine the effort towards CATOBAR ?

with the navy clearly not wanting more MiG 29Ks and floating a global tender for 57 fighters and Dassault carrying studies of rafale M being able to operate in the STOBAR configuration, that might be the compromise the Navy might be willing to make for the moment and immediate future to near term future.

to me, it is STOBAR vs CATOBAR for the long run.Their advantages vs disadvantages, that is driving the navy for the 65k Ton carrier.

There are abundant lessons in India for the Australians negotiating the huge and complex $50 billion contract for the navy’s 12 new submarines.

The Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited (MDL) yard in Mumbai is halfway through a program to build six conventionally-powered Scorpene-class submarines in collaboration with the French shipbuilder Naval Group, which has just changed its name from DCNS.

Against competition from Japan, Germany and, earlier on, Sweden, Naval Group won the contract to design and help build 12 very large Shortfin Barracuda submarines in Australia. The Shortfin is a conventionally-powered version of another Naval Group class, the nuclear-powered Barracuda submarine.

One issue to be dealt with quickly is the view that lingers in some quarters, mainly in South Australia, that 100 per cent of the components of Australia’s new submarines must be made in Australia.

The Mumbai dockyard has a very strong focus on the “make in India” policy of the Modi government but despite its best efforts, local, or “indigenous”, content is expected to reach just 30 per cent in the sixth boat.

The Indians are very conscious of a weakness in their national economy that hindered early efforts to get the submarine project moving. The economy had made a major jump from an agrarian base to one heavily focused on IT but along the way it did not develop manufacturing capability on anything like the same scale.

The Modi government is strengthening the manufacturing sector with a big push to skill the population.

Naval Group says that if it gets to build more Scorpenes for India after the current six, its goal will be to meet the government’s target of at least 50 per cent local content.

The major Indian effort to modernise and significantly increase the size of its own submarine fleet is driven by concern about a steady increase in Chinese naval activity in the Indian Ocean with regular visits by the PLA Navy to the port of Karachi in neighbouring Pakistan.

The strong Chinese naval presence comes amid a standoff between Chinese and India troops on the Sikkim-Bhutan border region.

The six Scorpenes are just the start for India. They may be followed by three more Scorpenes and then by six more conventional submarines to be designed in India as it focuses on strengthening its own strategic industry capability.

At present India’s navy operates 13 conventional submarines and two nuclear-powered boats, one of them leased from Russia. Older Russian conventional submarines used by India are likely to be extensively refurbished to extend their lives.

Naval Group clearly wants to convince those sceptical about its Australian project that if its submarines can be built in India, they can be built in Australia.

Captain Rajiv Lath, a retired Indian Navy submariner who leads the engineering side of the Mazagon building program, said that after initial problems and delays, the project had come together very effectively. Each boat got easier, Captain Lath said this week.

The first of the Indian Scorpenes, INS Kalvari, was launched in October 2015 and has successfully test fired a torpedo and an Exocet anti-ship missile and carried out diving trials. The boat is expected to be delivered to the navy within weeks. The second submarine, INS Khanderi, was launched in January this year and is now carrying out sea trials.

Work is under way simultaneously on the other four boats and the goal is to launch them at nine-month intervals.

Captain Lath said he believed that while Australia had ordered 12 conventionally-powered submarines, it was likely that a decision would eventually be made to switch the program to include some nuclear-powered boats.

The Indian project was a big test of the technology-transfer process, Captain Lath said. “The first of class was very tough. We had a lot of problems in the beginning but we’ve got through the difficult part and learned from our mistakes.”

Early in the project, three welders were sent to France to learn the high-level skills needed to put together the pressure hull. These respected “welding gurus” then trained dozens of Indian welders. But it would have been better to send 15 or 20 welders to France to start with, Captain Lath said.

On the issue of technology transfer, Indian engineers said they could fully understand why, after building submarines for 100 years, a nation such as France would be reluctant to hand over its technology for nothing. The goal in future would be to design as much as possible of the technology in India and acquire the capability to make the platform there.

French engineers said a major early lesson was underestimating the difficulty of building the first boat in the series in the purchasing country.

The key was to allow enough time at the start of the project to learn the basics. “Don’t set out to build a submarine,” said a Frenchman intimately involved in the transfer to India of key technology who declined to be named because he worked in a high-security area. “You must go from bottom up. Start with the smallest design details and build upwards from there. And don’t go too fast. It takes time to build the skills your workforce needs and you can’t buy that.”

Naval Group has overseen the modernisation and expansion of the Mumbai yard that has been building fighting vessels since 1774.

The managing director of the French company’s arm in India, Bernard Buisson, said he was proud that the first in the series of six submarines was able to be built from scratch in India, rather than being build in France.

Keys to this were the technology-transfer process, the development of crucial quality-control skills and the training of skilled local manpower.

The submarines are built in five large sections which are then welded together. Cutting and rolling the steel for the first section took several months and then that section was rejected because the work did not meet the stringent standards required. Since then the rate of defects has declined rapidly.

The government-owned shipyard and the French company want to build the three more Scorpenes that they hope the Indian government will order. But they are up against a Modi administration policy obliging any foreign companies building in India to operate with a local private-sector partner. MDL is considering relaunching as a majority public company.

With two of the state of the art Scorpene submarines undergoing trials in the ocean off Mumbai and construction of the others moving rapidly along, a French specialist compared building the first submarine to assembling a piece of flat-packed Ikea furniture. “You’re up to midnight shouting in frustration at the first one — but once you’ve got it right the rest are much easier.”

Brendan Nicholson is defence editor of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute site, The Strategist. He was flown to Mumbai by Naval Group.

We have only 3-4 mine sweepers left, we cant even protect our harbours and we are talking of Nuclear Powered EAMLS. Our anti submarine chopper umbrella is in tatters, we have a severe shortage of subs. Those are the priorities.

If you want to dominate IOR look at the choke points...mallaca straits, between Andaman and Nicobar islands and Northern edge of Indonesia. We can choke this off by subs and dominate it by air (from A&N). That will force China into waters close to Australia. Lets see how Aus reacts. A carrier cannot choke this off...subs can.

Carriers are also extremely vulnerable without a sub screen. I am willing to bet a case of scotch that this EAMLS stuff carrier won't be approved when it comes to actual approvals and contract signing.

DDGs capable of carrying meaningful load of Nirbhays, SSKs, SSNs, SSBNs is need of the hour. We can't subdue China using a single CVN, for pakis, we don't need at all. For a cost of one CVN along with its air complement, we can have 3 of each class of vessels above.

Last edited by Karthik S on 11 Jul 2017 19:18, edited 1 time in total.

Nirav, opposing a enemy carrier fleet by your own is harking back to WW 2 days of US vs Japan ! Insanely expensive and painting a huge taraget. Simply not going to happen. Solution must be subs and missiles. And why cant we use our peninsula as a carrier ?

Saurav Jha: What is the status of the anti-radiation missile and the long range anti-ship missile?

Avinash Chander: For the anti-radiation missile design is in progress, in fact hardware is being readied for the first trials. We expect successful trials of this ARM from an aircraft in about the next three years.

The long range anti-ship missile is on the drawing board, and we are confident that in about six years we would be able to get it ready. The long range anti-ship missile is going to be a ballistic missile with a seeker which can hit ships at long range.

Saurav Jha: So this is a rough equivalent of the Chinese DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile? An anti-access/area denial system?

Avinash Chander: Something like that yes. So as you can see almost the entire spectrum of missile capability is being addressed. And addressed to meet state of the art requirements thereby giving full teeth to our armed forces....

But seriously INS Baaz at Campbell Bay has a 3000 feet runway and plans to extend it to 6000 and then 10,000. I know its a very small island but I would be intrigued to see if it can be developed into a big base. Also SU 30s with refuelling can also reach the 6 degree channel.

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Nirav, opposing a enemy carrier fleet by your own is harking back to WW 2 days of US vs Japan ! Insanely expensive and painting a huge taraget. Simply not going to happen. Solution must be subs and missiles. And why cant we use our peninsula as a carrier ?

The way I see it sir a third carrier is certain.Options are:4 billion USD for a 40,000 Ton STOBAR flying the Rafale or F18. Gripen N doesn't seem likely. Expected in service date 2030.

4 billion is constant but not cost of EAMLs and reactor ??? And no the 3rd carrier is not certain by a long shot. Nothing is ceratin in Indian defence unless CCS approval comes and contract is placed. Even after that funding can be stopped as we dont fund long term projects separately as we should but we fund them via annual budget. There is a 5 year plan for defence procurement but that is a paper excercise. Its meaningless as funding is never given on that basis.

If it was we would close to placing contract. Lets commission the Vikrant first then we will see about 3rd carrier.

My responses have been primarily aimed at posters who call for a follow on of the IAC - I.

Which is why the 4 Billion constant

Progress on IAC - II

Asked about the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC-II) project, he said the Navy will be able to approach the Defence Ministry in the next two-three months for funds for the project as ground work on it being finalised."It is a big ticket item. There is a lot of positivity both from the government side as well as the Navy. May be in two-three months, we will be in a position to take up the issue with the (defence) ministry to get funds," he said.It will be the second indigenous aircraft carrier and will be one of the largest across the world.

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Nirav, opposing a enemy carrier fleet by your own is harking back to WW 2 days of US vs Japan ! Insanely expensive and painting a huge taraget. Simply not going to happen. Solution must be subs and missiles. And why cant we use our peninsula as a carrier ?

I do understand the need to acquire the Minesweepers and subs and other equipment like anti sub choppers.

I do however trust the navy to ensure that it doesn't end up into an either/or situation wrt the equipment you have highlighted which is also urgently needed.

Must keep the faith

What can navy do ? They are crying themselves hoarse and blue in the face but nothing happens. One of the finest service chiefs ever Adm Joshi resigned to make point that Navy cant even buy batteries for its subs and to shame the MoD. But in vain.

I do understand the need to acquire the Minesweepers and subs and other equipment like anti sub choppers.

I do however trust the navy to ensure that it doesn't end up into an either/or situation wrt the equipment you have highlighted which is also urgently needed.

Must keep the faith

What can navy do ? They are crying themselves hoarse and blue in the face but nothing happens. One of the finest service chiefs ever Adm Joshi resigned to make point that Navy cant even buy batteries for its subs and to shame the MoD. But in vain.

Oh, I absolutely hate the way he was asked to step down indirectly and the then RM asking the navy to "not fritter away national resources" right after a tragedy.Antony should have resigned.

The only reason I'm positive about re equipment of the Indian armed forces is because of the current central govt.

What can navy do ? They are crying themselves hoarse and blue in the face but nothing happens. One of the finest service chiefs ever Adm Joshi resigned to make point that Navy cant even buy batteries for its subs and to shame the MoD. But in vain.

Change did happen. Should be much easier and quicker to purchase things like submarine batteries.

In a related move to shorten the procurement cycle, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), chaired by the Prime Minister earlier this week, has increased the financial powers of the Defence Minister.

In the past, the Defence Minister was entitled to clear deals upto Rs. 500 crore, which has now gone up to Rs. 2,000 crore Jointly, the Finance Minister, the Defence Minister can approve projects up to Rs. 3,000 crore, up from the earlier Rs. 1,000 crore. The Defence Secretary too has now been given financial powers upto Rs. 500 crore to clear deals. This ensures that a major chunk of the procurements are approved within the ministries, sources said. About 70% of the deals by number are below Rs. 3,000 crore. So now only deals of Rs. 3,000 crore and above would go to the CCS for approval....

Rs. 3000 crore is about $500 million.

30,000,000,000 INR is equal to 464,972,102 USD @ 64.52 Indian rupees to 1 US dollar.30,000,000,000 INR is equal to 408,212,695 EUR @ 73.49 Indian rupees to 1 Euro.30,000,000,000 INR is equal to 360,892,704 GBP @ 83.13 Indian rupees to 1 British pound.

Last edited by ramana on 12 Jul 2017 23:00, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:Added high lights. ramana

Yes but Def Secy has powers of 500 crores not the service chiefs...that's the problem. Its the bureaucrats who don't understand/don't like services so why not give the powers to the services ? This shows the steady downgrading of the service hierarchy vis avis the IAS and this is a very serious problem that has really hurt morale and capability. An ex Vice Chief of Army Staff told me just this week how bad things have become. Its not BJP or Cong...its all governments steadily doing this.